Homosexual Relationships Are Wrong

[mr.guy]

But the numbers dont lie.

Does this mean that the AIDS virus definately prefers homosexual men as hosts? Please, no cryptisism this time.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Does this mean that the AIDS virus definately prefers homosexual men as hosts? Please, no cryptisism this time.

no, if anything I think it means that AIDS prefers the transfering mechanism that is more common in gay male partners.

 

[kevmicsmi]

The numbers do not indicate that AIDs discriminates! Your conclusions do not match your evidence. The article plainly says that AIDs is caused by unprotected sex and not homosexuality.

It's not the numbers that I dispute, but the association with homosexuality as being the cause of AIDs.

Ae, you are right, I dont know if AIDS is CAUSED by homosexual sex, And I didnt think I implied that. If you took it that way, my bad.

 

[mr.guy]

no, if anything I think it means that AIDS prefers the transfering mechanism that is more common in gay male partners.

And how exactly does AIDS "discreminate" this "mechanism"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ae, you are right, I dont know if AIDS is CAUSED by homosexual sex, And I didnt think I implied that. If you took it that way, my bad.

No apology needed.

I think that you have grossly misinterpreted the information in the article.

We still haven't gotten to the bottom of what you have said, attempting to use the article.

"Aids does discriminate"

In the context of our little discussion, it seems that you are saying that AIDs somehow discriminates between homosexual and heterosexuals. This is completely indefensible.

Is a homosexual man who uses a condom more likely to get AIDs than a heterosexual man who uses a condom?

No, and the information is plainly available in your own source.

 

[Draka]

If this is turning into a thread soley based on HIV/AIDS why not pull statistics from the source of sources? The CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

By looking at the statistics here you will see that male-to-male sexual contact exposure to HIV/AIDS is the cause of more cases than that of any other way. Notice I said cause of CASES...not cause of the disease. Now...the reasons for this difference in numbers has nothing explicitly to do with homosexuality itself...but more the particular acts and the parts of the body they involve. Women get HIV/AIDS more than hetero men. Why? Because of the parts affected. It is simply a fact that the tissue in the colon and around the anus is thinner than that of the penis and therefore is more susceptible to rupture and therefore allows direct access for the bodyily fluid tranfer. Semen to blood. This is also the cause in women. Whether by anal sex or by vaginal you are dealing with thinner and more tearable tissue than that of the penis. So either way you look at it it is more men that transfer the disease by the tearing of the lining walls of their partner...no matter what sex they may be. The fact is that the colon has thinner tissue than the vagina and hence...why anal sex produces more cases than vaginal. Also, condoms, used or not, have more a possibility to tear in anal sex than in vaginal sex due to the mere friction level alone. This also shows why condoms are more effective in vaginal sex than in anal sex and why hetero cases of HIV/AIDS is normally lower than homosexual rates. This is not in any way a condemnation of homosexual men...just a presentation of facts alone. Homosexuality did not and does not CAUSE AIDS. HIV/AIDS is a virus with its origins not even in humankind or in this country. That information is well known I believe.

 

[Ori]

I think people who hate homosexuals are just as bad as racists.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Just a note to the Christians in here--if you think that you're spreading a positive witness by bashing homosexuals, think again. You're doing just the opposite.

Kudos to those of you who choose to keep an open mind.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Is a homosexual man who uses a condom more likely to get AIDs than a heterosexual man who uses a condom?

.

Actually yes they are consider this

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm

Most of the time, condoms work well. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex

No, and the information is plainly available in your own source.

The only reason I used that source, is because I felt they would be most likely to skew numbers in favor of LARGER percentages of Gay population, and SMALLER percentages of Hiv through gay sex. I wanted to keep my number ratio conservative. This in no way means I endorse the content of this sight to be a fair, and balanced ANALYSIS of issues.

I think that you have grossly misinterpreted the information in the article.

how so?

 

[kevmicsmi]

And how exactly does AIDS "discreminate" this "mechanism"?

Because of the likelihood of tears and cuts in the anal wall from intercourse. This leads to fluids directly contacting the bloodstream.

 

[kevmicsmi]

If this is turning into a thread soley based on HIV/AIDS why not pull statistics from the source of sources? The CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

By looking at the statistics here you will see that male-to-male sexual contact exposure to HIV/AIDS is the cause of more cases than that of any other way. Notice I said cause of CASES...not cause of the disease. Now...the reasons for this difference in numbers has nothing explicitly to do with homosexuality itself...but more the particular acts and the parts of the body they involve. Women get HIV/AIDS more than hetero men. Why? Because of the parts affected. It is simply a fact that the tissue in the colon and around the anus is thinner than that of the penis and therefore is more susceptible to rupture and therefore allows direct access for the bodyily fluid tranfer. Semen to blood. This is also the cause in women. Whether by anal sex or by vaginal you are dealing with thinner and more tearable tissue than that of the penis. So either way you look at it it is more men that transfer the disease by the tearing of the lining walls of their partner...no matter what sex they may be. The fact is that the colon has thinner tissue than the vagina and hence...why anal sex produces more cases than vaginal. Also, condoms, used or not, have more a possibility to tear in anal sex than in vaginal sex due to the mere friction level alone. This also shows why condoms are more effective in vaginal sex than in anal sex and why hetero cases of HIV/AIDS is normally lower than homosexual rates. This is not in any way a condemnation of homosexual men...just a presentation of facts alone. Homosexuality did not and does not CAUSE AIDS. HIV/AIDS is a virus with its origins not even in humankind or in this country. That information is well known I believe.

Completely agree.

 

[Draka]

Now having stated all that, may I say something else? These statistics are in no way "proof" that "homosexual relationships are wrong". It just means they are more susceptible to certain diseases and complications as a result of sexual acts. The relationships themselves are not wrong. Relationships are based on caring and love and compassion. Not just sex. If homosexuals are monogamous in their relations then the likelyhood of infection goes down dramatically. This is true also for heterosexuals though. Though it seems the human race is very much handicapped in the whole monogamy thing nowadays.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Now having stated all that, may I say something else? These statistics are in no way "proof" that "homosexual relationships are wrong". It just means they are more susceptible to certain diseases and complications as a result of sexual acts. The relationships themselves are not wrong. Relationships are based on caring and love and compassion. Not just sex. If homosexuals are monogamous in their relations then the likelyhood of infection goes down dramatically. This is true also for heterosexuals though. Though it seems the human race is very much handicapped in the whole monogamy thing nowadays.

I agree this is no proof that gay male sex is wrong, this is merely proof that it can be more dangerous

 

[sojourner]

I do not believe in homosexual marriage or companionship, feeling are OK because they cannot be helped. as long as someone does not act out upon these feelings its alright. Im very puzzeled at many christians have the gay/lesbian pride banner as well.

Anyway:Homosexual companianships was probably warned against us because:

1. If there is a mass increase in these marriages/companionships AIDS will spread like a wild-fire (This is probable)
2. It degrades the value and order of a relationship, because if this is allowed to go on, who says something like orgies or polyamory wont be let loose?
3. the bond between a man and a woman is sacred
4. If there is a rapid growth of Homosexual relationships, then children will grow up to be homosexuals as well (This is also statistically probable), meaning that in the end most people will be homosexuals.
5. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder which is taken to seriously to now be called a natural and cultural thing.
6. AIDS is erupting worldwide because of homosexuality, endangering lives (such as the netherlands)

Also read this:from http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5014/CFI/family/index.htm:


In the Netherlands, “gay marriage” hasn’t stopped AIDS

A study in the journal AIDS reported that in Holland, where “gay marriage” has been legal since 2001, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that “partnered” homosexuals have “outside” lovers, although fewer than the “unpartnered,” and that men in these relationships are still contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates. This is progress?

As for the moral argument, it’s easy to make to those who have not shut their ears to self-evident truth. But even if marriage were not created by God Himself as the fountainhead of human life, a powerful case can be made on purely sociological grounds. Sanctioning “gay marriage” would, among other things:

• Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government.
• Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.
• Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).
  
  A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001.
• Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.
• Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.
• Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.
• Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

Note that i am not saying that i am hating gay or lesbian people, im saying that when they are coupled it is very wrong and harmful.

This is the quite possibly the largest load of misinformation and scare-tactics I've ever seen!

As gays marry, the number of promiscous gays will drop. AIDS will become less prevalent.

Allowing a couple who love each other to express themselves degrades loving relationships...how?

And has nothing to do with same-sex relationships.

Allowing homosexuals to hve legal relationships will not create more "little gays." that's just bunk.

Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Check the DSM. Homosexuality ain't listed!

AIDS is erupting worldwide because of promiscuity and unprotected sex -- not monogamous homosexuality.

So, now the family is meant to protect us from the "evil government???"

How will homosexual marriage "allow" children to experiement with homosexuality? and that has nothing to say about the very real problem of heterosexual marriages where the daddy perps on the children...shall we outlaw hetero marriages, as well?

That may be due to the fact that homosexuals are not married. Many married and bused partners do not report, because they want to "save the marriage." I think that data is skewed, and has nothing to do, particularly with homosexuality itself.

Children are more at-risk going to a single-parent home, than by being perped on by an adoptive father??? Stuff happens, and it can happen anywhere.

Maybe people feel trapped by heterosexuality...

Pit the law and the government against thousands of fundies who believe that everyone should think and act as they do...

Attack on freedom of WHAT?? If you want true freedom of religion, then you'll allow churches to legally perform gay marriages, if they deem it acceptable to do so!!!

Again: Biggest load of horse hockey I've ever seen.

 

[onmybelief]

I can feel the disdain you have for homosexuals, Lord Roghen. Christ called us to love all those around us. I try not to judge, but this is a hate filled post you have written. And I am truly sorry that you feel the way you do.

As for the other matter, that homosexual relations cause the spread of HIV/AIDS. This is certainly true, but no more than heterosexual relations would. Those who disagree: Someone who has AIDS has sex with someone of the same sex and has sex with the opposite. There is an equal chance for them to get AIDS. (I'm sorry if that didn't make since, the way I worded it. I could not think of how to word it better.)

 

[Mister_T]

Christ called us to love all those around us. I try not to judge

:clap

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Actually yes they are consider this

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm


The only reason I used that source, is because I felt they would be most likely to skew numbers in favor of LARGER percentages of Gay population, and SMALLER percentages of Hiv through gay sex. I wanted to keep my number ratio conservative. This in no way means I endorse the content of this sight to be a fair, and balanced ANALYSIS of issues.

how so?

You are still misinterpreting the information if you are trying to defend your previous statment that AIDs somehow discriminates. All of your sources indicate that it is the risky behavior that gay men tend to do like anal sex without a condom or high statistics of gay men contracting the virus. But heterosexual men are similarly prone not to use a condom in your own source! Yet your first source says that not all gay men participate in anal sex. This means that anal sex is not a definative characteristic of gay men.

So here's a perfect example of your gross misinterpretation:

I said:

Is a homosexual man who uses a condom more likely to get AIDs than a heterosexual man who uses a condom?

To which you reply with your second source:

Most of the time, condoms work well. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex.

This evidence does not answer my question, and cannot be used to support youtyr baseless alegation.

Heterosexuals have anal sex too. The condom is not likely to fail because the person is a homosexual or heterosexual, so we cannot conclude that AIDs is discriminating, but merely that condoms are less reliable with anal sex than with vaginal sex. IMO, that's why homosexuality is not listed on the page to which you refer. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm


Is the condom likely to fail because it is on a homosexual and less likely to break on a heterosexual having anal sex with his girlfriend? Is AIDs discriminating or not?

EDIT: Let's review the article that you cited.

Can I get HIV from anal sex?

Yes. In fact, unprotected (without a condom) anal sex (intercourse) is considered to be very risky behavior. It is possible for either sex partner to become infected with HIV during anal sex. HIV can be found in the blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, or vaginal fluid of a person infected with the virus. In general, the person receiving the semen is at greater risk of getting HIV because the lining of the rectum is thin and may allow the virus to enter the body during anal sex. However, a person who inserts his penis into an infected partner also is at risk because HIV can enter through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis) or through small cuts, abrasions, or open sores on the penis. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Not having (abstaining from) sex is the most effective way to avoid HIV. If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom. Most of the time, condoms work well. However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. A person should use generous amounts of water-based lubricant in addition to the condom to reduce the chances of the condom breaking.

====
Interesting silences:

1) No distinguishing between hetero or homo anal sex
2) Anal sex is no less risky for heteros or homos
3) The solution is to add "generous amounts of water-based lubricant" .

Note that homos are not to do something different. If so, we might be able to conclude that AIDs discriminates...



[/FONT]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

 

[Mister_T]

Real men don't use astroglide.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Mike, Bouncing Ball, and Maize did a wonderful job of pointing out the illogical and outright false statements in the OP, so I'll just add this.

One thing that has been brought on the other umpteen zillion threads about homosexuality that I feel compelled to mention here, is that there is not a single shred of evidence that outlawing homosexual marriages or even relationships will have a single effect on any thing heterosexuals do.

For that matter, I have yet to see a single coherent post that contains a valid and logical causal link between recognizing gay marriage and the 'breakdown' of the nuclear family. Somehow, I doubt I'm going to see such on this thread either.